RTS games are nothing more than rock paper scissors to me. I just don't get where the Strategy is? He's doing this, I counter with this. It's all pretty much set in stone. All players wind up with a successful system and just repeat it ad nauseum. Never saw the appeal, tried to like it but couldn't. Too much button mashing for my tastes too. There is a lot less smarts to this than people think.

I loved Company of Heroes though. To me it was actual strategy. You had to use terrain and fields of fire. Flanking and barricades, actual war tactics.

You must be playing computer all the time... There are a few aspects to RTS a person can enjoy some or all of them:

1) base management (some games offer minimal base management, others like AoE allow you to build walls, fortifications, etc)
2) economy management (proper resource collection, etc.)
3) Building your army (picking the units, distribution, etc)
4) Controlling your units, army, spellcasters, etc in battle (usually referred to as micro)
5) The dynamics of having to be prepared/counter what your enemy is doing (especially in multiplayer, where they are much less predictable)

It is far from set in stone in a good RTS... watch some high level casted games of StarCraft 2 on youtube and notice how much work goes into trying to spot enemy drops to not get owned by them, trying to counter their tech choices, strategies to catch your opponent off guard, fool them into thinking you did a different tech, controlling your armies to maximum efficiency (doesn't always happen, but usually does), taking risks to try and get ahead but leaving yourself open, etc... RTS is not for everyone as it can take a fair amount of brain power to play it at anything other than a casual level.

Well to me RTS you have to see the big picture. unlike most other games where it is story driven, shooting and killing but with the RTS games you start from scratch and ther isn't any story line.
I had a couple of friends ( before PC age late 70s early 80s) that would spend days playing I think it was called risk they would spend the whole time at one house playing this game I would show up with beers and watch them play for a while then party with the other people then go back into the kitchen where they had the huge map that took up two tables I swear the map was the same size as a king size bed .
totally understand what you are saying most people will block the supply lines quickly build there Army and destroy the opposition which pretty much happens to me on a regular basis playing single player.

What I do like about the RTS is the building from scratch maybe I need to try a sim type game instead of a RTS game but for myelf I just like to see the otehr side and how it works because I just might be missing something.

Thanks for the replies guys. I can see the appeal it has for you. And I don't intend to crap on the genre just because I don't get it. Here's something I pulled off the web. I'm surprised that RTS beat RPG.

"Based on unit sales for the 12 month period ending in June, the most popular PC gaming genres are as follows (sample games in parenthesis):"

RTS games are nothing more than rock paper scissors to me. I just don't get where the Strategy is? He's doing this, I counter with this. It's all pretty much set in stone. All players wind up with a successful system and just repeat it ad nauseum. Never saw the appeal, tried to like it but couldn't. Too much button mashing for my tastes too. There is a lot less smarts to this than people think.

I loved Company of Heroes though. To me it was actual strategy. You had to use terrain and fields of fire. Flanking and barricades, actual war tactics.

So chime in, what's the appeal to you?

For me the appeal is the ultra fast paced competitive online multiplayer game play. The strategy comes in the form of scouting, map specific strategies, terrain use for advantage, timings, positioning, unit compositions etc. Just because the best of the best players in the world use an execute the most efficient strategies and the lesser players emulate it doesn't mean it doesn't involve strategies. If you follow SC2 closely you will see the the metagame is constantly evolving bringing "new flavors of the month" every month in which the best of the best pro's create and execute newer more optimal strategies.

Scouting, terrain use, flanking and barricades are all a huge part of SC2 and I would imagine most RTS games. Your statements show me that you are either horrible at RTS games and/or you really don't know what you're talking about. Do you know what your effective APM is when playing? Button mashing? The last I knew the term button mashing meant hitting random buttons without any thought. There is absolutely none of that involved in RTS games. It will get you nowhere in any RTS.

Holla at me when you're in master league you bronzie.

With all that being said over 90% of RTS players never venture into competitive multiplayer play and simply play campaign at their own molasses pace with ultra low APM which yes, takes no skill.

It's no surprise to me that strategy is the most popular genre as SC2 is larger than the NHL in terms of viewership.

Thanks for the replies guys. I can see the appeal it has for you. And I don't intend to crap on the genre just because I don't get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pabz0r545

Your statements show me that you are either horrible at RTS games and/or you really don't know what you're talking about.

I expressed my opinion as nice as I could. No need to be a dick about it.

I was quite good at CoH multiplayer. Again, I just found myself doing the exact same things on the same maps over and over again, against different opponents. If you find a strategy that works, why would you change it? Gets boring though.

I enjoy some RTS games but more often than other types of games I tire of them, before I finish the game. They get a bit tedious for me.

I agree that a lot of people just find a formula that works for them and then stick to that and eventually annihilate the AI. Not really a lot of strategy involved with that style of playing. I suppose you have to be able to adapt to unforeseen situations but ya, I wouldn't call it strategy if you just turtle a huge army and then swarm the enemy.

I like it when the game presents scenarios that you have to think your way our of and it maybe limits your units or resources or something. But sometimes it feels cheap and I just want to get it over with and move on, lol.

Homeworld is probably the best example I can think of as a story driven RTS game that I have played. Maybe StarCraft games too but I haven't played SC1 all the way through and haven't touched SC2 yet

My favourite RTS games would be:

Homeworld
Dawn of War (1 & 2)
Red Alert 3
World in Conflict

They are not necessarily the most complex games but they are the ones I have enjoyed the most.

To an extent I agree but mostly no. Games like StarCraft are exactly as you say, micro intensive and you have to be able play a certain way to win. There are good RTS out there, SupCom is still my favorite, Sins of a Solar Empire I like but it takes much too long to play.

Really the answer is RTS need bigger maps, larger scale, but we've sort of driven it to the opposite with StarCraft and MOBAs due to wanting quick games and sadly I dont see this changing any time soon.